ARM: preserve supressed exceptions due to throw in finally block

[Serge Boulay]

Doesn't .net's "using block" do the same thing with suppressed exceptions as
the ARM proposal? That is, if you wanted access to the suppressed exception
you're basically back to resource handling without the using block?

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Tom Ball <tball at google.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a big difference in the small impact of how secondary exceptions
> > are stored and printed compared to how generics affected the Java
> developer
> > experience.  On the scale of Java changes, ARM's impact should be closer
> to
> > enhanced for loops than generics.
> >
>
> Should be, true.  And yet we don't even have any proposed guidelines for
> programming in the presence of the proposed handling of suppressed
> exceptions.
>
>
> > Whether this feature can guarantee perfect code or optimally
> > manages nested exceptions is arguably less important then the fact that
> it
> > should emit better code than the developer with a much smaller time
> > investment on his or her part.
>
>
> I wasn't expecting optimality.  I'd settle for composable and usable.  But
> we don't even have any reason to believe it will be that.
>
>
> > Platform and library writers often forget
> > that there is a large class of developers who have a schedule gun to
> their
> > heads to crank out applications quickly (I can smell gun oil as I write
> > this), so any small language improvement that reduces development time
> and
> > improves reliability is a big win.
>
>
> The proposed handling of suppressed exceptions isn't that by any stretch of
> the imagination.  At least, not based on anything written about it so far.
>
> My personal regret isn't that more time
> > isn't being spent on debating this feature, but instead that it's not
> > already available for my code.
> >
>
> I understand the attraction of
> just-get-something-working-now-and-worry-about-it-later.  That works very
> well for web-based applications where compatibility isn't important.  But
> it
> doesn't work so well with programming languages.  Your six months of glad
> would lead to six+ years of regret.
>
>